COUNCIL WON'T SAY IF IT WILL PROSECUTE TAXI DRIVER ACCUSED OF REFUSING TO TAKE DISABLED PASSENGER AND THEIR DOG

The council has refused to reveal what happened at a meeting discussing whether or not legal action should be taken against a taxi driver for refusing a disabled person and their dog a ride.

The public and press were excluded from the meeting on October 23.

Only brief information was revealed on the agenda, which stated that councillors would hear a report into the refusal of a licensed private hire driver to carry a disabled passenger and their assistance dog.

Members of Coventry City Council's Licensing and Regulatory Committee decided to hold the section of the meeting relating to the matter in private.

Since then, CoventryLive has been asking for details of the meeting to be made public. But the authority has refused to reveal the outcome.

A spokesman confirmed the case "went before committee for a decision as to whether to institute legal proceedings".

They said members of the committee were "perfectly entitled" to hear the matter in private under Local Government legislation.

Under the law, private hire operators, private hire drivers and taxi drivers cannot refuse to carry assistance dogs, nor charge extra for the journey. Doing so is a criminal offence, and can be punished with fines of up to £1,000.

Drivers with genuine and serious medical conditions affected by dogs can apply to the council for a medical exemption certificate, but will only be exempted from the legal duty to carry assistance dogs if the certificate is on display in the vehicle.

Why can't the public know?

CoventryLive had asked for any details which could be revealed on the meeting and its outcome to be made public - the ones who use the city's taxis.

We also asked what law the council was using to hear such issues in private and why the council believed it should be heard in private.

A spokesman for Coventry City Council pointed to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, which says that "‘a principal council may by resolution exclude the public from a meeting during an item of business whenever it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information".

Under Schedule 12A paragraph 7 of the same act, exempt information can include ‘information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime’.

The spokesman added: "It is for this reason that the decision to institute any legal proceedings is heard in private.

"The decision is made by the Committee at the start of the meeting, following which it goes into private session.

"The Committee is perfectly entitled to do this under the legislation as described."

Has this happened before?

Last year, a taxi driver in Nuneaton was fined after he refused to take a booking from a passenger with a guide dog.

The incident was witnessed by another driver who reported it to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council.

The authority took the driver - described as a “local taxi operator” - to court for discrimination after stopping a man from having a taxi journey because he had a guide dog with him.

The driver was prosecuted under the Equality Act 2010 and, at Leamington Spa Magistrates on May 31 and found guilty. He was ordered to pay more than £600 in fines, costs and victim surcharge.

Councillor Gwynne Pomfrett said at the time: “Discrimination of this sort is completely unacceptable and incidents like this cause great distress to individuals.

“I hope that the council’s firm action and the financial penalties imposed by the court will deter any future occurrences.

“We will not hesitate to take action against any such discrimination again in the future. It’s important that our licensed taxis and private hire vehicles are accessible to everyone.”